ch_nearby_stations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds' stations, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. The output schema may handle return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'coordinates (latitude, longitude)' but doesn't explain the 'distance' parameter or its default value. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter roles or usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'find' and the resource 'nearby Swiss train stations', specifying the geographic scope (Swiss) and the input basis (coordinates). It distinguishes from siblings like 'be_search_stations' or 'no_nearest_stops' by emphasizing proximity and Swiss context, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ch_search_stations' or 'no_nearest_stops'. It mentions coordinates as input but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.